REF is the statement that every stationary subset of a cardinal reflects, unless it fails to do so for a trivial reason. The main theorem, presented in Sect. 0, is that under suitable assumptions it is consistent that REF and there is a κ which is κ+n -supercompact. The main concepts defined in Sect. 1 are PT, which is a certain statement about the existence of transversals, and the “bad” stationary set. It is shown that supercompactness (and even the failure (...) of PT) implies the existence of non-reflecting stationary sets. E.g., if REF then for manyλ ⌝ PT(λ, ℵ1). In Sect. 2 it is shown that Easton-support iteration of suitable Levy collapses yield a universe with REF if for every singular λ which is a limit of supercompacts the bad stationary set concentrates on the “right” cofinalities. In Sect. 3 the use of oracle c.c. (and oracle proper—see [Sh-b, Chap. IV] and [Sh 100, Sect. 4]) is adapted to replacing the diamond by the Laver diamond. Using this, a universe as needed in Sect. 2 is forced, where one starts, and ends, with a universe with a proper class of supercompacts. In Sect. 4 bad sets are handled in ZFC. For a regular λ {δ<+ : cfδ<λ} is good. It is proved in ZFC that ifλ=cfλ>ℵ1 then {α<+ : cfα<λ} is the union of λ sets on which there are squares. (shrink)

We present a general framework for forcing on ω2 with finite conditions using countable models as side conditions. This framework is based on a method of comparing countable models as being membership related up to a large initial segment. We give several examples of this type of forcing, including adding a function on ω2, adding a nonreflecting stationary subset of, and adding an ω1‐Kurepa tree.

If the Bounded Proper Forcing Axiom BPFA holds, then Mouse Reflection holds at N₂ with respect to all mouse operators up to the level of Woodin cardinals in the next ZFC-model. This yields that if Woodin's ℙ max axiom (*) holds, then BPFA implies that V is closed under the "Woodin-in-the-next-ZFC-model" operator. We also discuss stronger Mouse Reflection principles which we show to follow from strengthenings of BPFA, and we discuss the theory BPFA plus "NS ω1 is precipitous" and strengthenings (...) thereof. Along the way, we answer a question of Baumgartner and Taylor. [2, Question 6.11]. (shrink)

We present an approach to forcing with finite sequences of models that uses models of two types. This approach builds on earlier work of Friedman and Mitchell on forcing to add clubs in cardinals larger than $\aleph_{1}$, with finite conditions. We use the two-type approach to give a new proof of the consistency of the proper forcing axiom. The new proof uses a finite support forcing, as opposed to the countable support iteration in the standard proof. The distinction is important (...) since a proof using finite supports is more amenable to generalizations to cardinals greater than $\aleph_{1}$. (shrink)

In this paper we consider whether L(R) has “enough information” to contain a counterexample to the continuum hypothesis. We believe this question provides deep insight into the difficulties surrounding the continuum hypothesis. We show sufficient conditions for L(R) not to contain such a counterexample. Along the way we establish many results about nonstationary towers, non-reflecting stationary sets, generalizations of proper and semiproper forcing and Chang's conjecture.